Debates of June 7th, 1995

Supply

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions and I will attempt to answer them all.

It is true taxes are quite high. It is also true that in the foreseeable future as a result of a debt that was more than doubled by the previous government, a debt we will have to continue.

Let us look at figures. When the previous government came into power the debt was roughly $179 billion. That is the figure from the auditor general. When this government came into power it was almost three times as much. Let us put it in perspective.

That is one of the reasons the Reform Party will never get anywhere. It does not understand the big picture. It exaggerates. I am surprised that my colleague did not mention we are now spending $7 billion less than in the 1994-95 estimates. I am surprised my colleague did not mention that as a result of the program review, a rational review to make sure government was doing what it ought to be doing, we have saved $3.4 billion.

How I wish I had more time. I have a series of quotes, because I had anticipated the question from one of my Reform colleagues, applauding the Liberal budget, recognizing nothing is perfect. I have other quotes and I tried to find one positive one about the Reform budget in which the figures did not add up.I could not find one positive quote.

I find it very difficult to have a member of the Reform Party telling us we do not have it right when the majority of Canadians

think we are doing it right. It does not mean it cannot be improved but we have started in the right direction.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question, one that needs to be answered very honestly.

He said the total budgetary requirement for the government is some $164 billion this year, an increase of $2 billion over last year. We need to commend the government for spending less than it could have, possibly less than governments of previous years would have spent. However, while we are experiencing all the cuts in the estimates we are debating today, we are spending more because of our huge interest payments. Those interest payments are growing every year because we are still borrowing.

I ask the member whether he acknowledges at all and if so to what degree that there is urgency in balancing the budget so hopefully we do not totally go down the tube. As has already been mentioned, the three year budgetary plan of the government adds $100 billion to the present $550 billion debt.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my enthusiasm in responding to the previous questioner I made a reference to the debt being $179 million and it should have been $179 billion. I apologize if that slipped out the wrong way. I do know the difference. There are 1,000 millions in a billion. I know my colleague will be happy to know that.

With regard to his question, it is a very serious problem. That is why we have reduced as much as we have. We recognize more could have been done but we also recognize that if we do it too dramatically we can destabilize society.

What is important is we made a commitment in our red book before the election and during the election that we would reach a 3 per cent of GDP target and we will do that. Once we have done that we will start attacking the debt. It is accumulating. We wish we could wish it away. There are no panaceas here. There are no magical solutions. There are no simple answers. That is what is sometimes offensive.

There is a suggestion that we could sort of wish it away. It cannot be wished away. It will take planning. It will take hard work. It will take the decisions that have been made, continuing in that direction.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I fail to see a quorum in the House. I am wondering whether it is because Liberal members are not interested in this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And there being fewer than 20 members present:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am told by the Table there is not a quorum. Call in the members. And the bells having stopped :

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since there is now a quorum, we resume debate. The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to discuss the motion on Vote 10, dealing with human resources development, and also ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to reflect on a consequence of the current budget, namely the major restrictions imposed to the Canada employment centres.

Let us do a bit of history. For several years now, there have been two manpower networks in Quebec: one managed by the provincial government, and the other by the federal government. The Quebec government already has jurisdiction over all the issues related to the labour market, including the Labour Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Labour Standards Act and the Collective Agreement Decrees Act.

As well, the federal government developed a network which was originally designed to maintain UI services and related programs.

Over the years, we realized that we did not have the means to afford two networks, and that we had to find a way to integrate them. In Quebec, a consensus was reached by all the stakeholders. The consensus was such that even the Quebec Liberal Party, a federalist party which was in office for several years, asked for an administrative agreement under which Quebec would manage the UI program over its territory.

That Liberal government created an organization called the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, which had the necessary structures, powers and programs to provide all the services related to manpower.

This year, given the budget constraints, the federal government had the option of saying: Yes, we will let the Quebec government assume full responsibility for manpower; this will allow us to make significant savings.

However, this is not the option chosen by the Department of Human Resources Development. Instead, it chose to reduce the number of its employees in the Canada employment centres across the country, so as to spread the cuts and make the process look like a reform or an administrative reorganization which will result in the creation of Canadian human resources centres. Some 20 to 30, if not 35 to 50 such centres would be established in Quebec. They would be like information booths or banking machines.

The fact is that, with this reform, this downsizing of every employment centre, under colour of seemingly commendable objectives, they will actually create appalling situations. For

years now, we have been saying among other things that adequate consulting services should be made available to the unemployed. Psychologists and other manpower counsellors working with the unemployed should be in a position to do so.

As a result of the federal government's decision, there will not be one single employee left in smaller urban centres, only automated tellers. In medium sized centres, much fewer people will be assigned to and available to provide services to the unemployed, the service users.

The minister is currently considering suggestions made by bureaucrats, public servants. It may be useful at this time to remind him that, before moving to implement this reform, the main effect of which will be to reduce personal contact between people on UI and those who can help them, perhaps other options should be considered.

Let me give you concrete examples. At the La Pocatière employment centre, in my riding, one of the most performing centres in Canada in terms of service requests processing speed, it had become the custom to automatically refer anyone filling an unemployment insurance claim to a counsellor. This prevented claimants from getting lost in the system or getting inadequate advice.

As a result of this measure, the staff will be cut by 17,6. I am not crazy about referring to people in terms of decimals; therefore, let us say about 18 people. After all the cuts are implemented, only 13 people will be left.

It is impossible to both reduce the number of employees and maintain or improve service at the same time. Therefore, the pilot project under way will probably have to be scrapped.

Let me give you another example. The employment centre in Rivière-du-Loup, which serves a vast area, was putting in place practices that would have made it easier to reach unemployed workers in the various communities scattered throughout the territory. Since staff will be cut from 48 to 38, the unemployed will go back to the old practice of merely sending a card to the employment centre. The impact of these cuts will also be difficult to assess, since people will turn to the employment centre more to collect unemployment insurance than to job search. This would run counter to the objectives of the government's planned contract with the people.

I would like to come back to what I was saying about information booth or banking machines. Imagine people who are not used to computers. The clients, who are often the long term or chronically unemployed, are people who freeze before the huge bureaucratic machinery. They have a hard time finding solutions. By making them use a computer and denying them the possibility of receiving individual service, we will put them in an intolerable situation.

What could have been done other than making cuts? In our opinion, the first, the real solution would have been to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over manpower training and to transfer the employees affected, thus allowing us to correct some rather absurd situations.

For example, the federal network now manages 27 manpower programs, while the Quebec network handles 25. There are some 100 Canada Employment Centres in Quebec, whose services are duplicated by the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre. This requires stakeholders in each region to spend a lot of energy working in concert with others to reach a consensus and develop manpower strategies adapted to local needs. People do so in good faith and make the system work because, if the Canada Employment Centres and the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre followed national criteria and established procedures to the letter, the system would not work. There would be no way for the system to work properly.

As I was saying, we think that the first solution is for the federal government to give jurisdiction to Quebec so that Quebec can streamline operations to make the system work.

Here is another example of measures which seem rather mind-boggling and which are the result of a bad decision. The department informed job search clubs, which are organizations co-operating with the employment centres and which are claimed to be among the priorities of the Department of Human Resources Development, that they will only serve UI beneficiaries.

The documents on the reform refer to more partnership agreements and more co-operation with all sorts of organizations capable of doing the job at a lesser cost. At the same time, job search clubs are informed that they will no longer be allowed to provide services to those who are not UI beneficiairies.

Just imagine knocking at the door of one such club, whose role is to help people looking for work, and being asked first whether you are a UI beneficiary. If this is not the case, you are out of luck, otherwise you may be referred to a Quebec labour department office.

The case of a person who does not get any UI benefits is truly mind-boggling. For example, a student graduating this year, who is not eligible to UI benefits, who is still a dependent, and therefore not eligible to welfare assistance, will not be able to get any help. I do not think this is the right way to treat people.

Before making a decision and following up on the proposals made by his officials, the minister should conduct a vast consultation exercise among MPs regarding the proposed administrative reorganization.

Such a consultation is important, both for the government and the opposition parties. It could be done regionally. For example, the members from Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces and the Maritimes could be invited and informed of the impact of

that reorganization on the employment centres in their ridings. I think this approach would shed a different light on the subject and be a useful adjunct to the studies prepared by bureaucrats.

Another concern linked to the estimates is the number of national advisory groups at the Department of Human Resources Development. Before cutting back on the number of employees in customer services, the people who provide services to the unemployed in all municipalities, in every single part of Canada and Quebec, it might be advisable to see if cuts could be made in these advisory groups which would be in line with the government's current budget requirements.

We are not saying that nothing should be cut. Obviously, considering the size of the debt and the deficit, we must all do our share. We all have to contribute. When we say all, we do not mean only the people assigned to customer services.

In the private sector, I think customer services would be the last place where they would cut staff. We have to consider what can be done, and I hope the minister will ask all members for their views on the reform proposals, to ensure that the final decision will take into consideration what the situation is in each region.

I was looking at a list of criteria for a Canada human resources centre, a local human resources centre and a kiosk. Some criteria work very well for urban areas and some for rural areas, but there are other criteria that are not considered at all. It is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

It says that a Canada centre should have between 75 and 150 employees, but not a word about the customers. I think that the criteria for a Canada centre should include the customers these people will have to serve and then, and only then do we decide on the administrative structure that is adapted to customer needs. In this case, the structure comes first and then they adjust the needs to this particular reality. It sounds rather farfetched, and I think we have a responsibility to represent these customers and take their needs into consideration.

A good example is an employment centre that deals with large numbers of seasonal workers, people who are spread over a vast territory. In that kind of situation, we must realize that when there are a lot more transactions, when there are very busy periods, when programs have to be put in place to give these seasonal workers a chance to find jobs or develop jobs that will give them some additional income, because they are the first in line to apply for these jobs, we need adequate services to do this.

I think it is important for the minister to include in his reform what he said in the documents, in other words, the new structures will be customer oriented and will be based on partnership. And to achieve this, the first thing to be done is to determine who the clients will be and with whom public servants will be dealing, and whether certain segments of the population or certain areas are more affected by the system and whether the reforms should take that into consideration.

Therefore, overall, while we are waiting for the government to eventually merge the two systems, and we will have to wait until the federal government decides to take the first step and admit that it has no place in the area of training the labour force, in the interim, these reflections aim to ensure that Canadians and Quebecers using employment centres will not be penalized by the decision, and that we will not be faced with absurd situations in which people are forced to travel great distances to obtain a service. The system should run smoothly.

Another element must be taken into consideration. I would say that about 90 per cent of the salaries of people working at employment centres come out of the unemployment insurance fund. That means that the employees who are paying unemployment insurance premiums and the employers who are making their corresponding unemployment insurance contributions are supporting this system. It is they who ultimately pay the salaries of the staff at employment centres. They should therefore have a say regarding the kind of services they will receive.

The way things are going, the government wants to create a sizeable human resources investment fund so that it can intervene in sectors like daycare and services for handicapped people, which both fall under provincial jurisdiction. This will artificially inflate the financial needs of the unemployment insurance commission when the government could easily have decided to take another approach altogether.

Now that there is a surplus in the Unemployment Insurance fund, could we not decide to continue to give people proper counselling services? Could we not decide as well to find a compromise solution which would maintain proper services and, at the same time, permit a reduction in UI premiums? This is one way to create jobs. If employers and employees pay lower premiums, a significant amount of money is then injected directly into the economy. This is a much more active approach to job creation than putting money in funds like the human resources investment fund, which will be bureaucratic and will not quickly find its way back into the economy.

Therefore, in looking for job creation solutions to make better use of all our human potential, the minister should consider the situation and the creation of the human resources investment fund or at least take a look at the scope he intends to give it, so that money may be made available quickly and show up in the paycheques of individual Canadians and Quebecers who earn their living with it and of employers too, who will then be able to

put more money into research or technological development, which will mean better service to the public.

Therefore, I am happy to have this time in the House to encourage the minister to analyze the recommendations made to him in detail and to invite him to submit them to the House before any decision is made.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the member was back on the old rhetoric of the Bloc Quebecois that it is so concerned about provincial rights and responsibilities that it wants total control over manpower and training.

Surely the argument is the creation of jobs, the creation of a well trained and productive workforce. The whole argument among different levels of government which may create bureaucratic jobs as the provinces and the federal government fight each other over who shall and shall not accomplish and spend money in what area is totally and absolutely non-productive. The issue should be that we want Canadians to be productive. We want them to be well skilled. We want them to be efficient in order that we can compete in today's international marketplace.

How does the member think that by having the money spent by the provincial government instead of the federal government it is going to achieve any of these particular aims and objectives?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find this question a bit surprising coming from a member of the Reform Party, because it seems to me that part of the answer can be found in an argument they have frequently advanced, which is that, if decision making were truly decentralized in our system, significant savings could be realized.

One of the sad facts of the terrible debt we are now facing is that, in our federal system, it is very difficult for individual citizens to identify who is responsible for what, and as a result they are forever turning to both the provincial and the federal governments for money, hoping that one of the two levels will come through with what their organization needs to function.

There is therefore a rather unhealthy competition between the two levels of government, because their fields of action often overlap. Another aspect is that it is not true that the manpower profile is the same throughout Canada. Quebec has its own characteristics because of the French language and culture of the majority of its citizens, and therefore the mobility of Quebecers is not the same as what may be the case in the rest of Canada.

There are also different choices that must be made in terms of occupation of regions. For example, when the human resources development committee conducted its cross country tour, Maritimers were in dread of a reform that would suddenly bring about an exodus to the west, when what they wanted was to be able to stay in their part of the country, exploring and developing the resources there.

That would lead to very different choices regarding manpower training. A truly pan-Canadian policy really encouraging full-scale mobility to the max would mean that we would train people in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia for jobs in Ontario, Alberta or Vancouver. On the other hand, if were to keep our manpower training policy to a local scale, if our objectives encourage people to find employment in their own areas, to lead their lives in their current environments, we would make different choices regarding training. We would go size up what resources are available in their areas and what kind of training needs the people already living in an area have. That would make a huge difference.

Take fishermen for example. Given the very inaccurate forecasts made, they became the victims of the overlap in the fisheries jurisdiction. If these people are put in a position in which they have to go back to school to train for jobs in an entirely different region, they will be cut off from the only reality they know and we will be faced with the same problems many southern countries are currently facing.

So, to get back to the hon. member's question, I think that the main solution is decentralization which, in itself, will be much less costly. If provincial governments do make mistakes, if they spend money irresponsibly, it will not take long for the electorate to turf them out. The way things are now, the people cannot actually determine whether the federal government, the provincial government or the municipal government is responsible for such and such a thing. In Quebec, there is overwhelming support in all regions for a massive decentralization of power. This would make it possible to quickly determine who created a situation in particular, who is responsible for ensuring it is a success, and who to praise if it is, or who to blame if it is not. That is one way of getting Canada out of debt.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who is from one of the regions, had to say and I have a question for him, not about decentralization, because he would like to see a move to decentralize towards the regions, but as the Canada human resources centres are formed, we realize there will be some centralization. Because of staff reductions, they are going to centralize staff, which is supposed to enhance efficiency, and they will set up service outlets. Since we are from these regions and, in my opinion and that of my colleague,

these service outlets will not have any decision making authority, people in the riding of Abitibi will have to travel more than 250 kilometres to talk to someone who has that authority.

Does he think it is efficient for the federal government to establish Canada human resources centres without consulting the regions and to develop a strategy that may be effective in Toronto and Montreal but not necessarily in our regions?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague raised an important point in the current debate. It seems that when there is a trend towards restructuring, and this also happens in the regions, people always recentralize when cutbacks have to be made. Amazingly, in a decision making pyramid, it is always the job at the bottom, never the job at the top that becomes expendable. The job at the bottom may provide direct services to customers but does not have as much clout at the decision making level.

My recommendation was to ensure that members could be consulted before this reform was implemented and it is right in line with my colleague's philosophy. I want members to be able to say: The suggestion that we should have only one Canada human resources centre in Rimouski is entirely unsatisfactory, considering the situation in the region. In the Gaspé, we would need a major centre, under whatever name, and another centre for the region around Rivière-du-Loup, and staff should be appointed accordingly, because Canada centres are going to see their consultant resources, who are not in direct contact with the public, regrouped in these so-called regional capitals. This will not have the desired effect, which was to provide direct services to customers. Imagine if McDonald's decided that instead of setting up branches where there are a lot of people, it would have only one restaurant and ask people to come and eat hamburgers 15, 20 or 50 kilometres from their residence. The company would go out of business.

If we do not make the right decisions, we will end up with the same results in terms of the satisfaction of Canadians and Quebecers with services offered by employment centres and with everything connected with unemployment insurance.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon-Souris.

I have the honour today to talk about the government's cost recovery and user fee policy. It is important that all Canadians have a better understanding of this policy. The 1995 budget announced that as a result of the program review, departments would introduce new or expanded initiatives to recover a greater portion of the cost of certain programs.

This government is committed to changing its approach to managing its activities and operations in total. In the context of program review, the government has been rethinking what its core functions are, how these core functions should be carried out and how best to finance the activities.

Cost recovery is one of many management initiatives that reflect this government's commitment to greater reliance on market forces, to improving the efficiency of its operations and effectiveness of its programs. Cost recovery and user fees involve having those who benefit the most or most directly from a government service or program pay a fair share of the cost of providing that service. It makes use of the user pay principle in which the user specific beneficiary rather than all taxpayers bears all or a portion of the financial responsibility for an activity.

On the face of it, this is viewed as reasonable, justifiable and fair to most people. However, cost recovery and user fees are often perceived as another form of taxation. It is important to recognize that cost recovery and user fees differ from taxes in their nature and function. Let us look at the way they operate.

Taxes are mandatory levies of which there is no quid pro quo for goods or services. Taxes bear no direct relationship to the use or benefits from public services or resources. Taxes are used to finance public goods such as national defence and security.

Cost recovery and user fees on the other hand are payments made by individuals and firms in exchange for some direct benefit. Generally they are levied when the people enjoying the benefits are a specialized or select group. For example, campers pay for entrance fees for camping in our national parks and Canadian travellers pay for obtaining a passport for travelling abroad.

The government recognizes that cost recovery is not appropriate for all of its activities. The government provides many programs for the benefit of all citizens, and others that for other policy reasons are intended to assist the recipient. These programs will continue to be financed from general tax revenues. Our view is that the introduction of cost recovery or similar charges for many programs or parts of programs could improve government administration and reduce costs to the general public without harming the public good.

The concept of cost recovery is not new. The principle is being applied increasingly by all levels of government both in Canada and internationally. Some federal departments and agencies have been charging fees since Confederation. Think of the fee for a new passport. That has been around since the early 1800s. Since only a limited number of Canadian citizens require a passport, it is appropriate to request a small fee for the service from a recipient of that privilege rather than have the general taxpayer pick up the entire bill.

The bottom line is that there are no free services. All government services come with a price tag, a price tag that either the recipient of the services or the general taxpayer must bear. The issue is getting the right balance. Let me provide some examples of existing cost recovery initiatives in this federal government.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada charges fees for the use of pastures and breeding facilities; inspection of seed, feed and food; and quality of inspection of livestock and grain. Industry Canada charges fees for issuing licences for non-broadcasting radio communication equipment; fees and charges for a broad range of activities such as inspecting equipment used for weighing and measuring consumer products; patents and trademarks; and metre inspections. Immigration and Citizenship Canada charges for immigration visas and citizenship certificates.

National Defence charges for the sale of goods and services to NATO, the United Nations and foreign governments. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police recovers most of its costs from provincial and municipal policing services. The superintendent of financial institutions recovers the costs of most of his regulatory activities from the banks and other financial institutions. Transport Canada charges for airport facilities and services provided to airlines, such as concessions, leases, landing and terminal fees.

It is important to emphasize to hon. members that the primary objective of the government's policy is not cost recovery. May I point to three objectives.

One objective is to ensure fairness by having direct users or beneficiaries pay a fair share of the cost of programs and thereby relieve some of the financial burden on the general taxpayer.

The second objective is to establish a market type mechanism to help assess which government activities should continue to be pursued and which should be scaled back, if not eliminated. In other words, can we still afford to provide a particular service and is there a market for it? If Canadians are not willing to pay a modest fee or charge perhaps it is no longer worth doing.

The third objective is to create a new relationship between users and departments. By this I mean that paying for an activity gives the user a more direct interest in how the activity is run, the quality of service provided and its cost. In turn, departments will become more attentive and responsive to the users' needs and expectations.

For example, the Atomic Energy Control Board collects fees for licensing nuclear facilities such as power reactors, uranium mines and mills. As a result of the fees, licensees are reviewing their licence requirements very closely and are cancelling unnecessary licences. Licensing costs have led some companies to review their use of nuclear processes and materials and to consider alternative and less costly processes. Atomic Energy Control Board licensing managers have become more aware of the total costs of doing their job which is contributing to an increase in the efficiency of their organization.

Canadians should also be assured that due process is used by departments and agencies when they introduce a cost recovery initiative or introduce user fees. Cost recovery initiatives are not simply imposed by departments. The government has established guiding principles for departments and agencies to follow when considering the introduction of cost recovery and user fees.

Here is a brief description of the process. The basic premise is the activities provided primarily to an independent and identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public should be paid for in whole or in part by those recipients. Implementing cost recovery or introducing user fees must be done in a transparent way that is open to public and parliamentary scrutiny.

Where fees are appropriate, they are to be implemented in consultation with users and under appropriate authorities and accounting mechanisms. Before implementing any fee, departments must assess the impact of charges on users and others affected to ensure there are no unintended effects. The decision will depend on factors such as the effects the charging will have on the clients' satisfaction with and their utilization of the activity and the impact on the program's objectives and effectiveness.

Interestingly enough simply studying the possibility of cost recovery can have some positive effects. For example, considering a new fee for a particular activity may lead to other important decisions because a good analysis may point to other management changes that should and could be made. It may be decided that people will not pay for a service if we cannot speed up delivery or reduce errors in providing the service.

Cost recovery can also improve the management of government resources by complimenting related management initiatives such as restructuring service delivery; for example, special operating agencies.

In today's tight fiscal environment there are not enough tax dollars to meet all the financial demands of government programs. Cost recovery and user fee revenues permit the government to provide and improve activities that it might not otherwise be able to afford, or to redirect the tax dollars currently being used to finance these activities or even to reduce the deficit.

The government is committed to providing Canadians with the best service possible within the resources available.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite. He had a lot to say about cost recovery, transparency and money the government has to spend. I have a simple question for him about unemployment insurance.

When there is a $2 billion surplus, and regions such as ours will be penalized significantly because of distances, how does he explain the transparency of the Department of Human Resources Development, which does not use the extra $2 billion to provide more services for its clientele? It is not transparent as regards other budget items because we cannot find out why it does not use this extra money to keep the people needed in the regions to give training courses or simply provide services.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

With respect to human resource development program, the minister looks at the program from a broad sense. He is obviously looking to fine tune the system so it can provide a much more efficient and effective program.

In my experience in my riding and questions I have asked beyond my riding, the training programs are continually being enhanced. The minister is trying to do his utmost in the training program to provide training for specific areas.

Given the information we have received from the department, it is trying to establish a program whereby an individual living in Quebec will have access to opportunities in Ontario or British Columbia. When we look at moneys saved, we have to look at the overall picture of our financial situation and direct moneys wherever they are needed and improve the system as best we can.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to directing money where it can best be used, I would like to get the member's opinion on one expenditure.

This year 45,000 civil servants can expect to be laid off, not rehired or what have you. Within the government there is the special measures initiative program through which the government will spend about $45 million specifically to target equity groups, aboriginals, visible minorities, women and people with disabilities, for hiring programs in the civil service.

It seems odd when we are laying off 45,00 civil servants and spending $45 million to initiate programs to hire more people. Is that money well spent?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Let me set the record straight.

The member said we are laying off 45,000 people this year. That is not true. We all know that. There are 45,000 people. Some will be laid off and some will retire over three years. We are being intellectually dishonest when we harp on that and say 45,000 are people being laid off this year. I have spoken to many people who are very pleased this program is unfolding the way it is. They are glad to receive their early retirement, the payouts as well. The government is approaching downsizing in a very humane and compassionate way.

Last week I spoke to a constituent who would like to accept a package. Unfortunately because circumstances call he is not part of the group that will be laid off or asked to take early retirement. Nevertheless we have to be honest with our viewers that 45,000 is spread over three years.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a lot was said here about cost recovery. We are all sympathetic to this. I refer to two services being provided, the business development centres across Canada and the case counselling services with the Federal Business Development Bank.

Is the hon. member suggesting that with the parliamentary appropriation given to the Federal Business Development Bank to finance that aspect of its operation, which is not under the cost recovery of the mandate of that bank, the case counselling services will go on a cost recovery basis to the people who use that counselling.

Will the people who benefit from or use the business development centres be charged for the computer time or the information available?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I have had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on several occasions to meet with representatives of the Federal Business Development Bank. They are providing a service in conjunction and co-operation with major financial institutions. It is a needed service. When they provide auxiliary support, yes that service will be paid by the user so it is not a burden on the FBDB.

The FBDB provides a service that is a higher risk for various users. Its record speaks for itself as far as recovery and not being a burden on taxpayers.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to Bill C-76.

The government has done its very best in the last two budgets to avoid any increase in personal taxes. Every $1 we raised in additional taxes was matched by $7 in spending cuts in the 1995 budget and $5 in cuts in the 1994 budget. Taxes on corporations were increased and the highly profitable Canadian banks will

pay a temporary surtax on their capital. All together, new taxes on corporations will raise an additional $974 million this year.

These measures are in addition to the improvements we have made to the tax system in the 1994 budget in which where we reduced the amount businesses could claim for meals and entertainment from 80 per cent to 50 per cent and we eliminated the $100,000 capital gains tax exemption which primarily benefited higher income Canadians.

During the prebudget period hundreds of Brandon-Souris constituents contacted my office and also made indirect contacts with the ministry. They sent all of us on this side of the House a message that the Liberal government must take strong action to break the back of the deficit. Great improvements and great strides have happened in this regard.

The preference for deep cuts in government spending versus any increase in personal taxation was stressed and our government responded accordingly.

I believe Bill C-76 is tough but fair. The finance minister worked hard to ensure balanced spending reductions and that the burden of deficit reduction is shared as evenly as possible in all regions.

The Brandon-Souris area is no exception. We did experience some reductions in personnel. Our weather station was closed. Those who work in Shilo will experience some job losses. However, this is being eased to some extent by the program put in place by various departments.

The elimination of the Crow rate is probably one of the most difficult for many farmers in our area to handle but many regard the transition as necessary.

Our government has cut spending dramatically but in a way consistent with the value of Canadians, promoting jobs and growth, protecting the most vulnerable members in our society and cutting at the government level first. Bill C-76 reflects the government's commitment to reducing government spending now while the economy is still in a growing cycle.

Decisive action today will ensure continued strength of the Canadian economy, protecting future jobs and prosperity. The decisions made with respect to agriculture will ensure Canadian farmers can take the best possible advantage of new global trade opportunities. Farming is best done by producers, not governments. That is why Bill C-76 is putting decision making back into the hands of the farmers.

We are expanding export markets and helping to create new domestic markets for commodities farmers across the prairies produce. How are we giving producers more control over their environment? Bill C-76 ushers in great improvements for Canadian farmers. The prairie grain cash advances would increase by $34 million. Cash flow enhancement programs would increase by $27.5 million. The NISA program would increase by $102 million. Transition programs to whole farm support for beef, lamb and hogs would increase by approximately $6 million. A matching investment initiative will increase by $12.7 million. Expanding export markets would increase by approximately $900 million. Further efforts are being made to expand the ethanol programs, and food safety would increase by about $5.8 million.

One of the most symbolical changes in the budget is the Crow rate. It has been recognized the Crow has caused some distortions and some inefficiencies both for the producers and for the transport companies. That will soon change. The Prime Minister was correct when he said that given half a chance farmers do not want subsidies, they want access to markets and they need and want fair prices.

It is the intention of the government to help farmers across the prairies do what they do best, feed the world, to diversify and to make a decent, honest living while doing it.

I believe the removal of the Crow rate will lead to increased value added production in the prairies over time. The circulation of billions of dollars and now the incentive to add value to agriproducts will provide opportunities and financing for the food processing industry in pasta plants, ethanol plants and many more we have not as yet conceived.

People learn to adjust to new opportunities and Manitobans have traditionally been trend setters in new markets. Clearly details need to be worked out, especially on pooling issues.

There is some concern regarding compensation for land values and how land owner payouts will be reflected in new lease arrangements on the approximately seven million rented acres in Manitoba. The reform of the WGTA will not be easy. The issues are complex but I am confident the minister will continue open discussions and that the $300 million transition adjustment fund will be used as effectively and efficiently as possible. The western economy will be stronger and more diversified with the removal of the WGTA.

It gives me great pleasure to bring forward two endorsements to the WGTA program, endorsements which are rather difficult to pry out of some with different political views from those of us on this side. It is sometimes very difficult to endorse or change an idea one does not have the courage to do oneself. I am pleased to indicate to the House that the first endorsement came from the Manitoba agriculture minister. He said that changes to the WGTA would rejuvenate the rural economy of Manitoba and would lead to an added value approach to farming and the development of job intensive processing industries.

The second endorsement came from one of my opponents in the 1993 election. He was in Ottawa this week. He said that the payment to landowners represents a reasonable compromise. It is not often that the three of us agree on anything, but miracles do happen in Manitoba and a miracle did happen in this instance.

Let me reiterate that although the government has cut spending dramatically, it has been done the cutting in a way which is consistent with the values of Canadians, promoting jobs and growth, protecting the west, protecting the most vulnerable in society and cutting the government purse.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about agriculture. It warrants a lot of attention, because relations between farmers and markets in Quebec and Canada will be changed significantly by some of the measures presented.

I have a question for him on one type of production that is growing considerably in Canada: lamb production. Alberta, Quebec and Ontario are the three largest producing provinces. The government has decided to close the experimental farm at La Pocatière, which is in my riding. It is the only experimental farm with a national mandate to do research on everything that concerns sheep. Sheep production is growing, and production should increase, because there is a demand for sheep and lamb in Canada production as a whole.

Are there other solutions in the member's opinion? Shutting down the farm and putting an end to research into this sort of production does not seem acceptable to me. In one way it is very dangerous. I would like to know if he sees any alternatives. In fact, both his region and mine are affected by this decision, which has a significant negative impact on production of this type.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Its thrust is similar to other segments of agricultural industry. I look at it in a similar fashion to hog production in Manitoba.

It is my understanding in terms of research that the thrust of the department is to attempt to put together partnerships involving the federal government, as well as specific provincial jurisdictions where there is great interest. More important, it is producers who are probably the most concerned about the genetic development of hogs, sheep or cattle and who may be addressing the markets on a global basis.

The best way to answer the question would be to indicate that the producers should be looking at bringing together their resources. Perhaps a check off system at the marketing end would help to address those concerns.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the hon. member opposite dealt mostly with Bill C-76, the Budget Implementation Act, and not so much with the estimates.

Since he is talking about budget implementation, I wonder if he would detail for me, because I am not as familiar with the red book as he would be, exactly how close was the red book promise on the WGTA with what the Budget Implementation Act actually did? That was to remove the WGTA. Was that the red book promise? Was there a different promise on the WGTA?

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, references were made to transportation and the WGTA in the red book.

I have to be honest. When I started into the campaign in 1993, a debate was going on about how transportation should be handled in various regions of the country, remembering that there is always a moving target. Conditions did change. We were facing as a government, possibly, circumstances that were not envisioned during the campaign. I will be succinct. In 1993 I was not of the view of the route on which the government has proceeded. We have had to rethink that whole circumstance.